United States v. Biebusch
| Decision Date | 01 January 1880 |
| Citation | 1 F. 213 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BIEBUSCH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
In this case and one other I have at this time heard, with the district judge, motions for new trials in cases tried before him when holding alone the circuit court. I have done so at his request, and only for the purpose of advising with and assisting him. It is well settled in this circuit that the rulings of the district judge while holding the circuit court are not subject to be reviewed in the same court, either by the circuit judge or the circuit justice. I make this announcement so that it may be understood that I am not to be expected, as a rule, to entertain motions for new trials in cases tried in my absence by the district judge and that I will only sit with the district judge in hearing such matters when he desires and requests it. It is not enough that he does not object or consents. Appleton v Smith, 1 Dillon, 202. In this case, however, I have, at the request of the district judge, considered carefully the questions raised by counsel for defendant in support of their motion for a new trial, and am prepared to announce my concurrence in his rulings.
The questions involved are, I think, sufficiently important to justify me in stating the legal propositions upon which we agreed, and which are conclusive of the motion. They are as follows:
1. Evidence offered in support of an indictment, containing several counts, goes to the jury in support of each and all the counts to which it is relevant, and so far as competent and where one of several counts is withdrawn after evidence has been offered, it is proper for the court to direct the jury to consider such evidence, under counts not withdrawn, in so far as it is legally applicable to them.
2. In an indictment, charging in one count possession of counterfeit coin, with intent to defraud, etc., and in another count charging a fraudulent sale of such coin, evidence of fraudulent possession and sale may be retained as supporting the first named count after the second has been withdrawn from the jury, though the person to whom such sale is made is not named in the indictment. A fraudulent sale to any person, whether named in the indictment or not, is competent evidence to support the charge of fraudulent possession.
3. At common law a person convicted of an infamous crime was rendered incompetent as a witness, but in England and in most of the states of the Union the disqualification of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
... ... and penalties, and therefore void under Section 10 of Article ... I of the United States Constitution providing that "no ... state shall ... pass any bill of attainder." State ... Smith, 1 Fed ... Cas. 1075, No. 498; United States v. Biebusch, 1 F ... 213; Cole Silver Mining Co. v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water ... Co., 6 Fed. Cas. 72; ... ...
-
Anderson v. State
... ... case, and violate his constitutional right aforesaid. In ... several of the states it is provided merely in that respect ... that the neglect or refusal to testify shall not create ... Reinhart, 39 ... Cal. 449; State v. Douglass, 81 Mo. 231; U.S. v ... Biebusch, 1 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 42, 1 F. 213; ... Bartholomew v. People, 104 Ill. 601, 44 Am. Rep ... ...
-
United States v. Abel
...but cf. Hoback v. United States, 4 Cir., 1924, 296 F. 5, certiorari denied, 265 U.S. 594, 44 S.Ct. 638, 68 L.Ed. 1197; United States v. Biebusch, C.C.E.D.Mo.1880, 1 F. 213; Aycock v. State, 1940, 62 Ga.App. 812, 10 S.E.2d 84; Ettinger v. Commonwealth, 1881, 98 Pa. 338. Rhodes' testimony ten......
-
Shreve v. Cheesman
...69 F. 785 SHREVE et al. v. CHEESMAN et al. No. 560.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.September 2, 1895 [69 F. 786] ... Thomas ... To the same effect are Oglesby v. Attrill, 14 F ... 214, 215; U.S. v. Biebusch, 1 McCrary, 42, 43, 1 F ... 213; Appleton v. Smith, 1 Dill. 202, Fed.Cas.No ... 498. In U.S. v ... ...